|
Commercial break.....
Biscoff cookies now available in a creamy spread. :)
Creamy Spread from Biscoff Cookies - Belgian Speculoos Biscuit That is all. |
Originally Posted by Razorback flyer
(Post 1031953)
Possible: Open 320 NYC. Obviously in play with the slot swap going through. Again, probably small at first if it happens, and I would imagine it would be funded through displacements in MSP, DTW, and possibly MEM. (one could even feasibly make the argument that the MEM 320 catgegory is very high credit time :eek:) I think they would probably pick one between this and the 73N DTW for the fall bid. Flight ops is being told to try and correct the problems that marketing has created. The easy fix is to run the aircraft type in each market more than once a day. This could be fixed without disrupting a bunch of peoples lives with displacements and rebasing... |
Originally Posted by Mem9guy
(Post 1032326)
The reason that Memphis is high credit time seems to me to have very little to do with basing. We are being built rotations with a lot of 33+ hour layovers in the middle. This makes the rotation inefficient on a daily credit basis and gives it a high amount of trip hour credit. This is not a basing issue, it is a marketing issue. Marketing is so obsesed with pushing for 100% load factors that they shuffle the aircraft type around all day. We are being flown into cities that only have A320's once a day, the last flight in and the first flight out. When the layover crew the night before is not legal to take the flight out in the morning, you create the need for a long layover or a deadhead the next day to get the crew back in the system. It does not matter where the crew is based, it is an outstation equiptment choice issue.
Flight ops is being told to try and correct the problems that marketing has created. The easy fix is to run the aircraft type in each market more than once a day. This could be fixed without disrupting a bunch of peoples lives with displacements and rebasing... As much as most of us hate deadheads... instead of having all the 30 hr layovers that we see, a mid day deadhead in or out would alleviate that and allow us to be more productive. I'm not sure who does the rotation construction, but building all of these 30 hr layovers is not our fault and very unproductive. I won't complain about the 30 hour CHS ones, though. :) |
Originally Posted by Columbia
(Post 1032312)
Biscoff cookies now available in a creamy spread. :)
Creamy Spread from Biscoff Cookies - Belgian Speculoos Biscuit That is all. |
Originally Posted by columbia
(Post 1032312)
biscoff cookies now available in a creamy spread. :)
creamy spread from biscoff cookies - belgian speculoos biscuit that is all. Ten |
Originally Posted by fishguy79
(Post 1032274)
OK, I realize pay, work rules, sick leave are all important, but for the upcoming contract survey, my number 1 thru 10 priority is scope. Consider this:
- You used to be able to fly on Delta metal to Recife, Fortaleze, and Manaus in Brazil, now you can go there via codeshare with Gol - You used to be able to fly daily (summer season) from ATL to Puerto Vallarta, now it is Sat only other wise code share with Aero Mexico - After the summer draw down you can get to TXL, ARG, CPH, MAN, SNN, PSA, AGP, VLC, BUD and one more I forget! via our JV partners. Not to mention EDI, OTP, AMM, CAI. - you used to be able to fly to Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam on us, now it is Vietnam Airlines. - you used to be able to fly LAX to GRU non stop on us, Now you can fly on Korean Air, MWF. How this is legal is beyond me but you can. This is the RJ playbook but with top end flying pure and simple. Wish we could stop it, but according to my union rep, the company is in compliance with our contract. In that case, our contract sucks. fish Totally and completely agree. We ought to unionize. |
5:15 should be per day, not duty period. 33 hour layover issue solved.
|
Originally Posted by NuGuy
(Post 1032282)
It's still a big poo sandwich, though.
A sugar-coated Satan sandwich, with a side of peas, please - BlogPost - The Washington Post |
Originally Posted by groundstop
(Post 1032386)
5:15 should be per day, not duty period. 33 hour layover issue solved.
|
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
(Post 1032306)
There has been a whole team of lawyers assigned to help Airtran work through their issues. Working with the law is not the way it is on TV, they don't come up with a magic angle and miraculously the good guys win. Their scope language was weak and SWA management has their rights. There are no magic bullets. It is just hilarious that an independent union run completely independently with no "conflict of interest" sets themselves up for this situation and you STILL blame ALPA.
So now we play the SOS card. Explain to me how conducting an SOS is any different than robbing a bank. As long as we are violating the law, we might as well go where all the money is. I don't have to prove that SWAPA colluded with management. They have every right to collude with their management, what would we go to court for? Neither SWA management nor SWAPA have any duty to the Airtran pilots therefore they are free to collude to their hearts content. Check out Guadalupe Holdings and tell me what you find out. Then come back with a real answer. You have a lot of anger but not a lot of plans. I dont have any anger. Just disgust. Write 'em off, it's the ALPA way. Do we have a union president in DC for a reason? Is he there to have a seat at the table or wield union power. I don't have the foggiest idea why I am charged any monthly dues for a useless entity. If our union prez isnt prepared to do a little jail time for the greater good, then what good is he? Are we worth fighting for or not? If not, flush the whole thing. Be a man. But I have a house payment and I drive a beamer and I like to think people think I'm important. Fat, old, bald and boring. Man up or get out. We are blue collar. PS: I checked out Guadelupe holdings months ago. Surely, ALPA looked around that corner too? Or not. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:41 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands